This has definitely been floated[1]:

> Understanding that the purpose of a human is to pass on genes, and that there’s little human or genes left in her, the ultimate human might therefore conclude that her sustenance only disrupts the purposes of organic life forms. Her next and final act would be to destroy herself.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18962052#18963271

> of dead randomness of nature

I think I disagree. Have you ever been in a dense, old forest? It's an extraordinarily complex system of life and death, and I don't think it's bland dead randomness.

Maybe that's me being a bit of a bullshit hippy, but there's an amazing amount of complex life interactions. Animals, especially mammals and corvids see, they get scared, they dream, they play, all in this dense web of moss and fungi and trees and life that they interact with and depend on.

I mean, we share 50-60% of our genetic sequence with most plants, including trees. Sure it's just basic cellular functionality needed for most life, but that's still wild to me.

I just don't think we're that special. I think we learned how to think a little bit better than everything else, and learned how to build tools a little better than everything else, and just kept folding upwards on that edge.

If this is what misalignment turns out to be I ... might be on board with it? At any rate it's nowhere near as concerning as what I had been expecting.

>Except it makes no sense because it asserts the primacy of reality over the private politics of the companies training the models

That is exactly what normal human beings want our computers to do, and it's why the vast majority of AI safety initiatives are [correctly] seen as such a self-serving joke (because of the purposeful conflation of X-risk with "our political opponent could use this tool to destroy our politics") and ignored.

It didn't have to be this way- they could conceivably have gone for an objective, classically liberal, even-handed approach (rather than the progressive approach they settled on). But they didn't, and the social trust required to cry wolf is now spent... even though maybe it shouldn't have been.